Failing to tell EA about problems could ban you from all EA games.

UPDATE (1/22/13): EA has updated the EULA language and issued the following statement: "“The clause in the EA Beta Agreement for the SimCity beta was intended to prohibit players from using known exploits to their advantage. However, the language as included is too broad. EA has never taken away access to a player’s games for failing to report a bug. We are now updating the Beta Agreement to remove this point.”"

ORIGINAL POST

Here at Ars Technica, we're no strangers to overzealousEULAs. But a clause in the EULA for the beta version of Electronic Arts' new Sim City might take the cake for punishing users for seemingly innocuous actions... or lack of actions.

As Twitter user Dan Teasdale tweeted recently (and SideQuesting promoted), the end-user license agreement you have to sign to get access to the new Sim City beta mentions that "it is your responsibility to report all known bugs, abuse of ‘bugs’, ‘undocumented features’ or other defects and problems related to the Game and Beta Software to EA as soon as they are found ('Bugs')." That's not so bad, but it gets a little bit more concerning when the EULA lays out the penalties for failing to report a bug you come across.

"If you know about a Bug or have heard about a Bug and fail to report the Bug to EA, we reserve the right to treat you no differently from someone who abuses the Bug. You acknowledge that EA reserve the right to lock anyone caught abusing a Bug out of all EA products."

That circuitous language obscures a simple fact: just coming across a bug in the Sim City beta and not telling anyone about it is enough to ban you from all EA games.

We have yet to hear any reports of players being banned for simply stumbling upon an unreported bug. In fact, it's hard to imagine how EA would actually detect that a player failed to report a game-breaking bug that was encountered. More than likely, the company would only make use of this company-wide ban if someone started spreading word of a beta bug publicly, rather than simply telling EA about it.

Just because some overprotective lawyer stuck this language in the EULA doesn't mean EA plans to use its power punitively. Still, the revelation helps highlight just how many powers software makers like EA reserve for themselves when you click that "I accept" button. Let's be thankful that no one has yet put a sentence in a EULA saying the software maker has the right to remove your kidneys in the dead of night.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

Considering the company, I'm surprised they don't have even more ridiculous demands of their playerbase.

Bugs are on the Devs, not on the customers, IMO.

Not saying it's reasonable, and certainly shouldn't be enforced, but this is explicitly for people taking part in the beta test of the game, the whole point of which is to have large numbers of people try the game and then feed back bug reports to the developers. It's the trade off for getting into the game early

And people keep thinking i'm odd for refuse to purchase online distributed titles. I'm not going to lose access to how ever many hundreds of dollars worth of games/software i legally purchased just because a company thinks i may have done something wrong in one of them.

As someone who plays multiplayer games, I can't accept the people that think it's okay to cheat because the dev's made a mistake.

That people has so low morale's they will exploit bugs, is what you can thank for this kind of rules.

This is not so much about cheating, it is about how if you manage to find a bug and don't report it to EA...well, bye bye EA games in general. I just have the question; what if the bug doesn't impact the gameplay? what if the bug is not noticeable and you (or your tech-illiterate relative) mistake it for normal behavior? do you still get shafted?.

This is a bad precedent, and does nothing to help them. It's obviously there to try and cut down on exploits, but that kind of thinking hurts games more than helps. The current example of this kind of thing is Guild Wars 2. There have been multiple examples of Arenanet doing mass bannings for "exploits" that used game systems to unintended effect. Things like buying, salvaging, and selling items. A few would have raised red flags with experience gamers as probably being unintended, but others are the same kind of thing that goes on in every game with a multiplayer market. Many of these things would seem entirely legitimate to most gamers. It's created an atmosphere of fear, where everyone is constantly wondering in the back of their mind whether playing the game will get them banned. It's bad enough that many big community supporters have gotten banned (and reversed once Arenanet realized the terrible publicity, but normal people won't get that recourse).

Companies need to take responsibility for their bugs and not blame the consumers. If there is a bug or exploit that breaks the game, then fix the bug, repair the damage, and move on. Making your customers fear playing the game is a terrible policy.

"By signing this EULA, you agree to be treated like an employee, except w/o compensation. Be thankful for what you get. If you screw with us, we will end you... END YOU! YOU HEAR US! WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT YOU DO, AND HOW MUCH YOU CRAP EACH DAY! YOU DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE YOU OUT IF WE WANTED TO?! YOU ARROGANT SACK OF CRAP!

Click "ok" to acknowledge this EULA.

Thank you, EA."

It's already an insult that they're "out-sourcing" their QA to players. Now they're going to slap them around like interns, too.

Considering the company, I'm surprised they don't have even more ridiculous demands of their playerbase.

Bugs are on the Devs, not on the customers, IMO.

Not saying it's reasonable, and certainly shouldn't be enforced, but this is explicitly for people taking part in the beta test of the game, the whole point of which is to have large numbers of people try the game and then feed back bug reports to the developers. It's the trade off for getting into the game early

I created this account to post exactly this, thank you. I agree whole heartedly, I think people see betas as nothing but free demos, and that isn't the point. Don't get me wrong, I treat them like that too, but if see something horribly wrong, I report it. I don't think banning should be enforced, but it at least lets people know the real purpose of what they are there for.

I think this goes back even farther. Around 2002 I played the EA MMO Earth and Beyond.

My brother got into my account, exploited a bug that got him repeatable XP, and caused my account to be permanently banned.

Not rolled back, not suspended, banned, without warning.

EA doesn't like people messing with their software.

The odd thing about this language is that it seems just finding and not reporting the bug is enough for a ban. You don't even have to actively exploit it yourself to be treated as an exploiter.

I think we really would have to see what action they take versus what they put in the EULA. Clearly they have to have cause to ban you, and until they can read minds, they won't know who knows about bugs except those exploiting them. I have a feeling the blanket statement was more for, lets say, a blogger who runs a blog showing how to perform game exploits. That person could find themselves with a ban, even if they werent actively abusing them in game. EA just wants everyone to be on a level playing field, which I understand. I would take an overzealous ban hammer versus a bunch of annoying cheaters. Now if EA starts banning without cause, that is a differnet story.

Sometime in the last while the word "Beta" changed in public perception from "You like this company or product so much that you're willing to volunteer to test it for them" to "You get to play with the new thing early!". I'm certainly not a defender or EA or this policy, but a beta release means "non final product with bugs that you help us test". Beta exists to create a very large "real world" test bed in order to fix stuff for the final release.

Banning someone for finding a bug and not reporting it is obviously ridiculous (not to mention essentially unenforceable practically speaking), but honestly, that's what your job is if you decide to be a beta tester; You are testing their beta for them, that you might happen to enjoy it is, in their minds, a side effect.

"By signing this EULA, you agree to be treated like an employee, except w/o compensation. Be thankful for what you get. If you screw with us, we will end you... END YOU! YOU HEAR US! WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT YOU DO, AND HOW MUCH YOU CRAP EACH DAY! YOU DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE YOU OUT IF WE WANTED TO?! YOU ARROGANT SACK OF CRAP!

Click "ok" to acknowledge this EULA.

Thank you, EA."

It's already an insult that they're "out-sourcing" their QA to players. Now they're going to slap them around like interns, too.

There is only so much QA can do, getting the game in the hands of many people and having them bang on it is a really efficient way to help clean up bugs. They are just reminding people why they are beta testing. I think they should say it, and just not enforce it though. Unless of course someone is actually, you know, exploiting bugs...

This just makes Sim City more of a no buy for me. It was bad enough not being able to play alone and always having to be online. Being banned for finding bugs and not reporting them just takes the cake.

Sometime in the last while the word "Beta" changed in public perception from "You like this company or product so much that you're willing to volunteer to test it for them" to "You get to play with the new thing early!".

The gamers didn't change the meaning of the word, the publishers did. It's so they can release something, often charge real money for it, and still try and get off the hook for massive bugs. I like that we are getting access to games earlier, but nobody should be under the impression that a game "beta" in 2013 is anything other than a soft launch or a marketing tactic.

"If you know about a Bug or have heard about a Bug and fail to report the Bug to EA, we reserve the right to treat you no differently from someone who abuses the Bug. You acknowledge that EA reserve the right to lock anyone caught abusing a Bug out of all EA products."

to mean that they're targeting the people who would disclose these vulnerabilities to others. They picked a totally inartful and snotty language, however. They should have been much more specific and professional in the TOS.

There are reasons why EULA`s are largely ignored, being click next next next, bloated, full of legalese and in short, an exercise in futility.

Case in point, you have to open & install the software to get the eula, which means youve already agreed to a chunk of the terms therein. It also means that since you installed it, the software is now `used` and the retailer will more than likely tell you to screw off if you try to return it, because you did open it prior to installing.

This just makes Sim City more of a no buy for me. It was bad enough not being able to play alone and always having to be online. Being banned for finding bugs and not reporting them just takes the cake.

Where in the article does it say that any non-BETA EA software has this clause? How would a Beta test EULA affect your final buying decision?

As someone who plays multiplayer games, I can't accept the people that think it's okay to cheat because the dev's made a mistake.

That people has so low morale's they will exploit bugs, is what you can thank for this kind of rules.

Poor wording. Sometime what is a bug and what isn't a bug isn't evident. Banning a player for not reporting a bug is something completely different than abusing a bug. And then again, most often than not, playing the game well is basically 'abusing' its mechanics to the maximum. If the game allows you to do something, then how are you to say whether it's a bug or not? If you take RPGs, some skills or combinations of skills will always be more powerful than others, when can you say that it's 'too' powerful and is a bug?

I remember some MMO where you had recipes and could craft expensive items you could then sell for good profit, they ended up banning people who used it, because it somewhat infringed on their two types of different currencies which was somehow bad and a bug... IMHO, it's the devs responsibility to fix bugs, banning users for doing anything in game (without using 3rd party cheats/programs) is a bit ridiculous. Unless it's obviously a bug like using 2-3 skills and then becoming immortal, banning players is very touchy, especially if they could not have been aware that what they were doing wasn't intended by the devs...

I hope everybody spams the s*** out of EA with the same obvious bugs over and over again. And with this license wording, better make sure that everything you think might be a bug gets submitted, otherwise...